6 ms·

"YOU NEED TO TRY HARDER TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS." - 2 seconds later - "STOP USING STEREOTYPES TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS, IT'S OFFENSIVE." I mean, I u

"YOU NEED TO TRY HARDER TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS." - 2 seconds later - "STOP USING STEREOTYPES TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS, IT'S OFFENSIVE." I mean, I understand the sentiment, but I can also see why many industry professionals begin to think this sort of thing is a catch-22 where smug criticisms will be levied, regardless of conscientiousness.

ucaetano 9y ago
"YOU NEED TO TRY HARDER TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS by not stereotyping, patronizing, abusing them and creating a hostile environment" There, I fixed it for you. You can appeal to minority groups without using stereotypes.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  I'm genuinely curious here: how? Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups? If we're not going to genericize all appeals (thus introducing the built in cultural bias of appealing to most people, i.e. the dominant group) don't we have to say "this thing that is unique to your cultural group is why you should be interested"? That sounds like it almost must include some stereotype. That doesn't mean patronizing, but it does mean making some assumptions about the group in question and why they might be interested.
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    It's almost as if the game is built specifically to be unwinnable. What an odd coincidence.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      This isn't a game, and it isn't about winning. The fact that you see it that way is "what an odd coincidence".
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    "Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups?" No, in a world where minority groups are set apart, appealing to them can be as simple as not setting them apart, by no harassing, abusing, discriminating, etc. You don't need pink office chairs to make an office space welcoming for women. You just need NOT to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. Simple stuff, really.
    - stinkytaco 9y ago
      The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above is a different problem. In that situation we are trying to not be hostile to a specific group. That's really a much easier problem to identify (not solve) because hostile behavior is hostile behavior, no matter who you are. It's incredibly important to solve that problem, but there we really have a universal solutions: treat people with respect, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Build policies that enforce that respect and hopefully build to a cultural shift where respect is assumed. But "appealing to minority groups" is another problem entirely. We're assuming that we have a problem that is due to some inherent bias in the way our culture has portrayed or encouraged a behavior. In this case that boys are more interested in tech because they got "STEM toys" as kids or that the toys that are available appeal more to boys or that the messaging surrounding tech is unconsciously biased towards boys. None of those problems involve being hostile towards girls. We also assume (correctly or incorrectly) that adjusting that bias could bring a better balance to this area. That involves targeting a message or policy to a specific group. In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" and are presumably trying to say "how do we get girls more interested in technology". I would argue that "don't be hostile" is only part of the problem, it does not address inherent cultural bias. If we assume that bias exists, then we need to make assumptions about girls and build solutions accordingly.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        > In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- jandrese 9y ago
  But how? I'm being serious here. You put anything culturally appropriate into the system and someone is going to call it an offensive stereotype. So you have to make it relevant to the user while not referencing anything specific about them, not an easy problem to solve.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    Easy: get rid of the blocking factors. As I just mentioned in another post: You don't need pink office chairs to make an environment welcoming for women. You just need not to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. [Edit] And for a bonus round: don't focus on culture. If you're interviewing someone for a SWE job, don't ask if they played videogames when they were kids. There is a good chance that they were too poor to afford them, or they never got it as a gift because they were females and people didn't think females would play videogames.
  - fishtank 9y ago
    It is possible to include minority groups in a community without pandering or using reductive caricatures. It can be difficult if the community has little familiarity with the actual experiences of those minority groups. In that case, it would be important to seek out people who are from those minority groups, or who at least have a great familiarity with those groups, to direct efforts to grow the community in their direction. If a person is anxious about being reprimanded for using an offensive stereotype, they do not have the expertise to employ "culturally appropriate" materials and ought to do more research/inquiry or delegate the responsibility of the outreach to somebody else.
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  Merely not driving away minority groups isn't enough to fix the imbalances in representation. People don't avoid things because of future negative experiences, they avoid things because they expect to get negative experiences there. Like, if police magically started treating African Americans like they ought to overnight, there's a lot of built-up fear that would still have the African American community avoid interactions with police. It's not just a behavior problem, but also a marketing problem. You can't fix a marketing problem without, you know, marketing.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    > People don't avoid things because of future negative experiences Oh, people do, all the time. How many times have you avoided doing something because of the fear of pain, failure and shame? It isn't a marketing problem. http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel...
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      That's exactly my point. The fear of the future causes behavioral changes now, not the actual future, which hasn't happened yet and cannot affect your current self.
api 9y ago
It's hard to question cognitive biases without invoking said bias or over-correcting. "Stop falling for the gamblers' fallacy!" "Stop calling everything with a low probability of return gambling!"
crankylinuxuser 9y ago
The only way here to "Win" is not to play the game. Catering to minorities = good until its not. And that fine line for some is blatant racism/sexism/ageism for others. Going on merit and projects also has its own downside - the claim there is the disadvantaged don't have a way to prove themselves due to inherent barriers against them. Seems accurate, but again, we have to discuss and not discuss.... Edit: I've seen these arguments and discussions at least a dozen of times on HN, in varying ways. And it all amounts to "Well, we shouldn't do bad, but bad's already being done and we can't fix it alone." Every time, I see very little constructive discussion how to make things better for all - it usually devolves down to low-grade flamewars and simmers up until dang and other mods do something. So, are there actual, constructive things we employees can do, to make these situations better? I know I try to watch my language, and try to treat everyone with respect and dignity. What else is there to do?
Y_Y 9y ago
But the problem is that pandering is silly and not effective (whether or not it's offensive to anyone is neither here nor there).
cirgue 9y ago
> catch-22 where smug criticisms will be levied, regardless of conscientiousness. This is 90% of online discourse: most people have absolutely nothing to contribute except smug criticism. Trying to satisfy popular opinion online optimizes for mediocrity, cynicism, and least-common-denominator thinking. If your pinkwashed bootcamp/outreach program/hackathon is getting people engaged who would not otherwise be engaged, then you're doing the right thing. Same for programs that prioritize technology over identity. There's a big audience for both. If people don't like that a group or event is not catering to their very specific idea of what inclusive environments should look like, then they're always free to go somewhere else or do their own thing.
dang 9y ago
Using uppercase for emphasis is against the HN guidelines. Please don't do that; it's like yelling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

ucaetano 9y ago

"YOU NEED TO TRY HARDER TO APPEAL TO MINORITY GROUPS by not stereotyping, patronizing, abusing them and creating a hostile environment" There, I fixed it for you. You can appeal to minority groups without using stereotypes.

stinkytaco 9y ago
I'm genuinely curious here: how? Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups? If we're not going to genericize all appeals (thus introducing the built in cultural bias of appealing to most people, i.e. the dominant group) don't we have to say "this thing that is unique to your cultural group is why you should be interested"? That sounds like it almost must include some stereotype. That doesn't mean patronizing, but it does mean making some assumptions about the group in question and why they might be interested.
- 1_2__4 9y ago
  It's almost as if the game is built specifically to be unwinnable. What an odd coincidence.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    This isn't a game, and it isn't about winning. The fact that you see it that way is "what an odd coincidence".
- ucaetano 9y ago
  "Isn't appealing to minority groups by definition setting them apart from other groups?" No, in a world where minority groups are set apart, appealing to them can be as simple as not setting them apart, by no harassing, abusing, discriminating, etc. You don't need pink office chairs to make an office space welcoming for women. You just need NOT to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. Simple stuff, really.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    The point I'm trying to make is that if we are indeed to engage to appeal to a specific group, we need to make assumptions about that group. Your example above is a different problem. In that situation we are trying to not be hostile to a specific group. That's really a much easier problem to identify (not solve) because hostile behavior is hostile behavior, no matter who you are. It's incredibly important to solve that problem, but there we really have a universal solutions: treat people with respect, regardless of sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. Build policies that enforce that respect and hopefully build to a cultural shift where respect is assumed. But "appealing to minority groups" is another problem entirely. We're assuming that we have a problem that is due to some inherent bias in the way our culture has portrayed or encouraged a behavior. In this case that boys are more interested in tech because they got "STEM toys" as kids or that the toys that are available appeal more to boys or that the messaging surrounding tech is unconsciously biased towards boys. None of those problems involve being hostile towards girls. We also assume (correctly or incorrectly) that adjusting that bias could bring a better balance to this area. That involves targeting a message or policy to a specific group. In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" and are presumably trying to say "how do we get girls more interested in technology". I would argue that "don't be hostile" is only part of the problem, it does not address inherent cultural bias. If we assume that bias exists, then we need to make assumptions about girls and build solutions accordingly.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      > In that situation we've defined a problem: "girls are not interested in technology to the same extent that boys are" Are you sure that's the problem? What if you restate it as "at some point in their lives, girls become less interested in technology than boys" or "at some point in their lives, girls' interest in technology declines, unlike boys'" Now you have very different problems and very different solutions. Why does that interest decline? What is driving it? Could it be a self-propagating, hostile, "boy's club" environment in technology? Maybe you don't even need to market to them, if they never lose the interest in it. And based on some data, I believe that my definition of the problem is probably closer to the real problem than yours: http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel... So maybe we're asking the wrong questions.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jandrese 9y ago
But how? I'm being serious here. You put anything culturally appropriate into the system and someone is going to call it an offensive stereotype. So you have to make it relevant to the user while not referencing anything specific about them, not an easy problem to solve.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  Easy: get rid of the blocking factors. As I just mentioned in another post: You don't need pink office chairs to make an environment welcoming for women. You just need not to have catcalls, rapists, abusers, sexist jokes, etc. [Edit] And for a bonus round: don't focus on culture. If you're interviewing someone for a SWE job, don't ask if they played videogames when they were kids. There is a good chance that they were too poor to afford them, or they never got it as a gift because they were females and people didn't think females would play videogames.
- fishtank 9y ago
  It is possible to include minority groups in a community without pandering or using reductive caricatures. It can be difficult if the community has little familiarity with the actual experiences of those minority groups. In that case, it would be important to seek out people who are from those minority groups, or who at least have a great familiarity with those groups, to direct efforts to grow the community in their direction. If a person is anxious about being reprimanded for using an offensive stereotype, they do not have the expertise to employ "culturally appropriate" materials and ought to do more research/inquiry or delegate the responsibility of the outreach to somebody else.
ThrustVectoring 9y ago
Merely not driving away minority groups isn't enough to fix the imbalances in representation. People don't avoid things because of future negative experiences, they avoid things because they expect to get negative experiences there. Like, if police magically started treating African Americans like they ought to overnight, there's a lot of built-up fear that would still have the African American community avoid interactions with police. It's not just a behavior problem, but also a marketing problem. You can't fix a marketing problem without, you know, marketing.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > People don't avoid things because of future negative experiences Oh, people do, all the time. How many times have you avoided doing something because of the fear of pain, failure and shame? It isn't a marketing problem. http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachelors-degrees-women-usa.png http://www.randalolson.com/wp-content/uploads/percent-bachel...
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    That's exactly my point. The fear of the future causes behavioral changes now, not the actual future, which hasn't happened yet and cannot affect your current self.

api 9y ago

It's hard to question cognitive biases without invoking said bias or over-correcting. "Stop falling for the gamblers' fallacy!" "Stop calling everything with a low probability of return gambling!"

crankylinuxuser 9y ago

The only way here to "Win" is not to play the game. Catering to minorities = good until its not. And that fine line for some is blatant racism/sexism/ageism for others. Going on merit and projects also has its own downside - the claim there is the disadvantaged don't have a way to prove themselves due to inherent barriers against them. Seems accurate, but again, we have to discuss and not discuss.... Edit: I've seen these arguments and discussions at least a dozen of times on HN, in varying ways. And it all amounts to "Well, we shouldn't do bad, but bad's already being done and we can't fix it alone." Every time, I see very little constructive discussion how to make things better for all - it usually devolves down to low-grade flamewars and simmers up until dang and other mods do something. So, are there actual, constructive things we employees can do, to make these situations better? I know I try to watch my language, and try to treat everyone with respect and dignity. What else is there to do?

Y_Y 9y ago

But the problem is that pandering is silly and not effective (whether or not it's offensive to anyone is neither here nor there).

cirgue 9y ago

> catch-22 where smug criticisms will be levied, regardless of conscientiousness. This is 90% of online discourse: most people have absolutely nothing to contribute except smug criticism. Trying to satisfy popular opinion online optimizes for mediocrity, cynicism, and least-common-denominator thinking. If your pinkwashed bootcamp/outreach program/hackathon is getting people engaged who would not otherwise be engaged, then you're doing the right thing. Same for programs that prioritize technology over identity. There's a big audience for both. If people don't like that a group or event is not catering to their very specific idea of what inclusive environments should look like, then they're always free to go somewhere else or do their own thing.

dang 9y ago

Using uppercase for emphasis is against the HN guidelines. Please don't do that; it's like yelling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]